New York Legalizes Abortion Until Day Of Birth

[*bfine32*]

(01-25-2019, 10:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh.  Baby killing humor from the pro-life crowd.

Huckabee would be proud.

It's not humor it's absolute disdain. But at least NY ordered the lights to be pink to celebrate this victory. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(01-25-2019, 11:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not humor it's absolute disdain. But at least NY ordered the lights to be pink to celebrate this victory. 

I have read essays and papers from intellectuals discussing post birth abortion in extreme situations up to two years old. Their argument is that it would be "moral" or ok up until the age of awareness which is around two years old.

I watched a video of some guy arguing against abortion and some lady arguing for abortion and she actually says that abortion after birth may be sometimes needed or something stupid. I think it's one of those gotcha videos by a guy named Chowder but I'm not sure. I watch those things for a laugh, not to be informed.

Of course after outrage becomes overwhelming, the authors remove these papers and say, "No, no. We mean this" or "that". Then as the paper or essay is scrubbed, the only sites that might have it are Christian sites and it's dismissed as fear mongering.

Could these papers be written for ethical debates? Most likely but I do believe there are some who actually believe this practice to be ok.

Edit: https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

[BmorePat87]

(01-25-2019, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pat has already said You cannot have a problem with how it is written.

What I actually said 

Quote:Makes sense. It's written to ensure that a woman can get an abortion to save her life if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade.

[GMDino]

(01-25-2019, 11:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not humor it's absolute disdain. But at least NY ordered the lights to be pink to celebrate this victory. 

Aye.  Protecting safe, legal medical procedures for women is a good thing.

[Millhouse]

(01-25-2019, 11:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not humor it's absolute disdain. But at least NY ordered the lights to be pink to celebrate this victory. 

I wonder how many that celebrated this new law has also called building a wall between the U.S. and all the countries south of us immoral. 

[*Nately120*]

(01-28-2019, 12:18 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I wonder how many that celebrated this new law has also called building a wall between the U.S. and all the countries south of us immoral. 

I think more unwanted kids and a giant border wall are both financial pitfalls, honestly.  That's a rather cynical way to look at things, but hey...follow the almighty dollar.  Just say you are all about the cash money and you can justify anything! But we have a government that can just print money whenever it wants, so who cares?

[Belsnickel]

(01-28-2019, 12:18 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I wonder how many that celebrated this new law has also called building a wall between the U.S. and all the countries south of us immoral. 

I know I didn't. But that's because government policies shouldn't use morality as a measure.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2019, 07:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But of course I was being factious; not surprised you missed it. 

It is impossible to tell when you are being factious because you refuse to stand on your beliefs.  You will spend an entire day defending Trump and then claim you are not a Trump supporter.

[*bfine32*]

(01-28-2019, 02:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is impossible to tell when you are being factious because you refuse to stand on your beliefs.  You will spend an entire day defending Trump and then claim you are not a Trump supporter.

Meh, it could be in the eye of the beholder. For instance in a thread earlier today I said that many of the quotes used since a deal was made to reopen the government have been destructive instead of constructive. In some weird twist of logic some simpleton considered that "supporting Trump".

Perhaps there's just a population out there that classifies not bashing POTUS 24/7 to be supporting. often when the subject has 0 to do with POTUS.

Never had a problem standing on my beliefs. Why do you think I'm on the opposite end of many subjects in this forum?

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2019, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For instance in a thread earlier today I said that many of the quotes used since a deal was made to reopen the government have been destructive instead of constructive. In some weird twist of logic some simpleton considered that "supporting Trump".

There was no "weird twist of logic".  There is absolutely nothing "destructive" about hoping Trump has learned a lesson.  That is why when I asked you a way to express that thought that was not "destructive" you gave up and just went back to your old personal insults both there and in this thread calling me a simpleton.

Just like your Donald when people call him on his BS.

[GMDino]

(01-28-2019, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meh, it could be in the eye of the beholder. For instance in a thread earlier today I said that many of the quotes used since a deal was made to reopen the government have been destructive instead of constructive. In some weird twist of logic some simpleton considered that "supporting Trump".

Perhaps there's just a population out there that classifies not bashing POTUS 24/7 to be supporting. often when the subject has 0 to do with POTUS.

Never had a problem standing on my beliefs. Why do you think I'm on the opposite end of many subjects in this forum?

Some people may just take it personally when they say one thing and do another 98% of the time and others mention it.

Maybe.

[*bfine32*]

(01-28-2019, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There was no "weird twist of logic".  There is absolutely nothing "destructive" about hoping Trump has learned a lesson.  That is why when I asked you a way to express that thought that was not "destructive" you gave up and just went back to your old personal insults both there and in this thread calling me a simpleton.

Just like your Donald when people call him on his BS.

Of course you look to belittle when you state "I hope you've learned your lesson". And even if you don't consider it as such; it's damn sure not defending Trump. But that's for another thread.

Perhaps I shouldn't retaliate when you question my integrity. You know what they say about arguing with fools.

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2019, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you look to belittle when you state "I hope you've learned your lesson". And even if you don't consider it as such; it's damn sure not defending Trump.  But that's for another thread.

There you go again.  YOU were the one who brought up the issue from another thread and now you turn around and say "That is for another thread".

It is like you go out of your way to say one thing and then turn around and say the exact opposite when anyone calls you on it.

BTW since you are not a Trump supporter don't you hope he has learned his lesson about bragging on how he was going to shut down th government over something he could not win?  Why are we all supposed to treat Trump like a snowflake and refrain from saying the truth just because h does not want to hear it?

[*bfine32*]

(01-28-2019, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There you go again.  YOU were the one who brought up the issue from another thread and now you turn around and say "That is for another thread".

It is like you go out of your way to say one thing and then turn around and say the exact opposite when anyone calls you on it.

BTW since you are not a Trump supporter don't you hope he has learned his lesson about bragging on how he was going to shut down th government over something he could not win?  Why are we all supposed to treat Trump like a snowflake and refrain from saying the truth just because h does not want to hear it?

YOU were the one that put my name in your mouth and questioned my integrity. Then you cry about somebody resorting to insults. 

WTS, I made a mistake by engaging with you. I'll try to refrain from it in the future. 

[GMDino]

(01-28-2019, 05:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Some people may just take it personally when they say one thing and do another 98% of the time and others mention it.

Maybe.

(01-28-2019, 05:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you look to belittle when you state "I hope you've learned your lesson". And even if you don't consider it as such; it's damn sure not defending Trump.  But that's for another thread.

Perhaps I shouldn't retaliate when you question my integrity. You know what they say about arguing with fools.

(01-28-2019, 06:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There you go again.  YOU were the one who brought up the issue from another thread and now you turn around and say "That is for another thread".

It is like you go out of your way to say one thing and then turn around and say the exact opposite when anyone calls you on it.

BTW since you are not a Trump supporter don't you hope he has learned his lesson about bragging on how he was going to shut down th government over something he could not win?  Why are we all supposed to treat Trump like a snowflake and refrain from saying the truth just because h does not want to hear it?

(01-28-2019, 07:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: YOU were the one that put my name in your mouth and questioned my integrity. Then you cry about somebody resorting to insults. 

WTS, I made a mistake by engaging with you. I'll try to refrain from it in the future. 

(01-28-2019, 05:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Some people may just take it personally when they say one thing and do another 98% of the time and others mention it.

Make that definitely.

[fredtoast]

(01-28-2019, 07:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, I made a mistake by engaging with you. I'll try to refrain from it in the future. 

No you won't.  This is another example of you saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.

The things that you call "insults" are just me pointing out your actions.

The things I call insults are you just calling me names like "simpleton" or "fool".

Most people can see the difference.  That is why they don't see "Hope Trump has learned his lesson" as an insult.  All it is is stating a fact.

BTW do you hope Trump shuts down the goivernment repeatedly every few weeks for the rest of his term over an issue he will not win?  Or do you hope he has learned a lesson?

[*bfine32*]

Where my Virginia peeps at?

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2019, 10:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where my Virginia peeps at?

I assume you're referring to the gross characterization of the bill that was killed in the General Assembly?

Since this probably won’t be the last we see of that Kathy Tran abortion clip, here’s what her bill actually does.

Third-trimester abortion is already legal in Virginia when the mother’s life or health is at risk. The bill loosens those restrictions. It doesnt say anything goes pic.twitter.com/WQjVUJZUt1

— Graham Moomaw (@gmoomaw) January 30, 2019

Of course...

TIL posting the actual text of a bill means I'm a Democratic shill https://t.co/xRVX5v9kmP

— Graham Moomaw (@gmoomaw) January 30, 2019

FWIW, Graham is a Virginia politics reporter for the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Edit: Another link on the matter: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/no-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html?fbclid=IwAR2zqCng5F3t1isMKrto-ddpFOHSIQe2CRXigrmqjbDHjlEIDHbZgMxF_GE

[BmorePat87]

(01-31-2019, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I assume you're referring to the gross characterization of the bill that was killed in the General Assembly?

Since this probably won’t be the last we see of that Kathy Tran abortion clip, here’s what her bill actually does.

Third-trimester abortion is already legal in Virginia when the mother’s life or health is at risk. The bill loosens those restrictions. It doesnt say anything goes pic.twitter.com/WQjVUJZUt1

— Graham Moomaw (@gmoomaw) January 30, 2019

Of course...

TIL posting the actual text of a bill means I'm a Democratic shill https://t.co/xRVX5v9kmP

— Graham Moomaw (@gmoomaw) January 30, 2019

FWIW, Graham is a Virginia politics reporter for the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Edit: Another link on the matter: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/no-virginia-democrats-dont-support-infanticide.html?fbclid=IwAR2zqCng5F3t1isMKrto-ddpFOHSIQe2CRXigrmqjbDHjlEIDHbZgMxF_GE

Was there an explanation for the removal of "substantially" and "irredeemably"?

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2019, 09:59 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Was there an explanation for the removal of "substantially" and "irredeemably"?

The word was "irremediably." I haven't been following it closely, but words like that in legislation are often rooted in politics rather than good faith policy efforts. They create ambiguity and subjectivity into the execution of policy that are intended to muddy the waters and make the law difficult to interpret by the judiciary. Whether this was reasoning they used in striking them in their bill, I don't know. This is just what I know from the use of qualifying language like that in law based on my experience in policy research.

In this specific law, the "and irremediably" part has been taken to mean that if there is any other potential avenue, even one that has a tiny chance of success, that would mean the use of abortion for the remedy was off the table. So that word in particular has, from my understanding, caused many issues.